Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laysan honeycreeper/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 July 2024 [1].

Laysan honeycreeper

[edit]
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the saddest articles I've written here, as it follows the path to extinction of this species almost by the minute, like a train wreck in slow motion. I've been able to track down all sources that say anything substantial about the species, and luckily it lived so recently that we have footage and photos of it, which are also old enough to be in the public domain. FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pass-by comment

[edit]
  • Not an image review per se but I'm concerned with File:Laysan honeycreeper in 1923.jpg. You use the tag "This work was never published prior to January 1, 2003" yet the source is a book from 1956. Presumably that would be publication prior to 2003? Also you say "The work of art itself is in the public domain in its source country..." yet according to our article Donald Ryder Dickey he was an American, so was the image first published in America? Is there an earlier publication for the image other than the 1956 book? If not, I'd check the Stanford copyright renewal database to see if the copyright on the book was renewed. If not, the tag needs updating. Therapyisgood (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a few cases like this, and this is the answer I got when I asked about it on Commons, which led me to use that tag:[2] That said, the image may also have been published early enough to be PD, the 1956 source is just the earliest I've been able to find. The footage it's from was also used in some contemporary newsreel[3], but I haven't been able to find out much about it. FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

[edit]

Non-expert prose review:

  • Made some changes to the article. Feel free to revert if they are not helpful.
  • No major concerns.
  • "Taxonomy" and "Evolution" sections are longer than I would like: I recommend adding additional level 3 headings if possible.

Overall, no concerns with prose, support. Z1720 (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits, I'm not sure how these sections could be split in a way that would make sense, and they're not really longer than most other such sections I've worked on, so I'll leave them for now. FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from UC

[edit]

A sad story indeed: beautifully written, though. Comments below:

  • The MoS tolerates species', but it's generally advised to try to avoid forms like this (that is, singular possessives with the trailing apostrophe) by using "of the species" where possible.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bird was first noticed in 1828: hm: do we know for sure that none of the native people of Hawaii noticed it, ever? Suggest "first noticed by Europeans", "first described in a scientific publication", "the first recorded sighting was..." or similar. I notice lower that we have Native Hawaiians never appear to have visited Laysan Island, but I suspect we're still dealing in absence of evidence rather than evidence of absence.
The sources all indicate that Hawaiian natives didn't visit the island, which is also why the island itself has no native name. While I see where you're coming from, in this case I think it goes a bit too far beyond the sources to cast (indirect) doubt on this. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd be much happier with "the first recorded sighting" or similar (on a different note, it's far from impossible that European sailors visited the island or sailed past without recording it), which I don't think casts doubt. You may be right on going beyond the sources: what do they say here, exactly? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Went with "recorded", as this leaves wiggle room for any possible other sighting. Sources say "first mentioned/noted". FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • George D. Freeth sounds like an interesting chap: worth a redlink? I wonder if he's the "George Freeth Sr." given as the father of George Freeth?
Added a link, and yes, seems probable it's his son, given the Hawaiian connection. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was accepted by most subsequent authors throughout the 20th century, and it: the antecedent of it is this, which is the change of name: we therefore need a new noun phrase here instead of it.
Said "the bird". FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • its wing measured 64–69 mm (2.5–2.7 in): is it worth giving a dimension here? "From socket to tip", or whatever the usual form is?
Unfortunately, none of the sources specify. I'm not aware of any standard apart from simply "wing-span", which is probably not what's referred to here, but the length of each individual wing. FunkMonk (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • scarlet vermilion: is there any sort of vermilion that isn't scarlet?
This is how several of the more recent sources put it. They look similar to me, but I can't really judge, as I have a sort of colour blindness. FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (probably taken from his footage) in the image caption isn't particularly clear until you get right the way to the bottom. You could make it "video footage", perhaps?
Removed that part from the caption, as I've since explained it in the article body, and the caption is long enough already. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ʻapapane differs from the Laysan honeycreeper in being blood-red overall, with black wings and tail, whiter under-tail covert feathers, and a longer bill: is all this relevant in the lead of an article on the honeycreeper? We've already described its coloration, so you could just say that it had a shorter bill than the ʻapapane?
Hmmm, I think it's important to briefly describe the ʻapapane for comparison, and this is also what several of the sources do. It's sort of a convention in bird articles to compare with similar birds. FunkMonk (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a convention to do so in the lead, though? Not a problem as such, just seemed a lot of valuable real estate to devote to a different bird. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, didn't realise you were talking strictly about the lead, shortened it to "The ʻapapane differs from the Laysan honeycreeper in features such as being blood-red overall and having a longer bill" since I think some distinction is warranted even there (the middle paragraph of the lead isn't much longer than the other two anyway). FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This bird was very active: I'd almost always restate the noun at the start of a new paragraph. Can we do without the word very? John Keating is ringing in my ear...
Added the bird's name to the earlier part of the sentence, but I'm not sure what "active" would mean in itself that isn't too vague for the purpose? FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely reasonable. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • sometimes entered buildings for moths: perhaps clearer as "to hunt moths" or similar?
Done, had already changed that in the article body, not sure how I forgot it there. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1903, domestic rabbits were introduced to the island, which proceeded to destroy the vegetation: reads slightly oddly: its vegetation would sound more natural to me.
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Colibri English, a Latin (scientific) name, or something else? Not sure why it's capitalised but not italicised.
This is German for hummingbird (German capitalises nouns), made it clearer in the parenthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a new bit of vocab for me! Can it be in language templates, then? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added template. It's "kolibri" in my native Danish as well. FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • restricted Himatione to the red species, the ʻapapane and the Laysan honeycreeper: potentially ambiguous with the comma: suggest a colon instead (it was only two species, wasn't it?)
Changed to colon. FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This classification was followed by most other taxonomists and the trinomial name was used throughout the 20th century.: five citations seems like a lot here. Do they all support all three sentences? If so, do we need them all to do so? If so, can we bundle at least some of them?
Spread it out a bit. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • fraithii a lapsus calami: what does a lapsus calami mean, and why doesn't the a get italicised?
It's explained in the following parenthesis (misspelling), or do you mean the etymology of the Latin term? The "a" is not part of the term, it's just the article of the word. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I understand now. Suggest the American ornithologist Dean Amadon considered the spelling fraithii [to be] a lapsus calami ('slip of the pen', or misspelling). 'To be' very much a matter of taste: as a is also a Latin word (albeit one which makes the phrase difficult to understand), it just makes clearer what's in English and what's not. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harold D. Pratt also indicated that the name had been corrected within the same publication: I'm not sure which publication is meant here.
Changed to "within the original description". FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • based on recent research that supported this: is this the name change, the species split, or both?
Both, changed to "supported these conclusions". FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • under the common English name Laysan honeycreeper rather than Laysan ʻapapane: MOS:WORDSASWORDS applies here (we're talking about the name, not the bird with that name), so we should italicise or use quote marks (I'd advise the former, as quote marks will be tricky with ʻapapane). Similarly elsewhere, particularly with They considered the name Laysan ʻapapane a modern retrofitting
Went with quotation marks because that's what I've done in other parts, because the word ʻapapane is preceded by Laysan, so the formatting doesn't clash. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some museums have multiple specimens, such as 24 in the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum in Honolulu: I'm not sure this is quite grammatical: better as "some museums have multiple specimens: the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum in Honolulu has 24...}} etc.
I wanted to make clear that these are just examples, a colon alone might indicate it's only the mentioned museums. Tried with "Some museums have multiple specimens, including:" FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sex ratio between adult specimens in museum collections is 1.7:1: I'm curious how do we get this ratio out of 105, which doesn't divide by 2.7: unless we've got some interestingly sexed hummingbirds (not a phrase I ever thought I'd write), we've used at least two different counts of the specimens in this paragraph. OK, 66:39 is 1.692:1, which is close enough to round up, but might still be worth making sure that the source is using the same corpus. At any rate, probably clearer as "the ratio of males to females", to save readers having to check the link to remember which way round the ratio is typically given.
Pipelinked. FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Schauinsland considered the Laysan honeycreeper an example of how a new species may arise through isolation.: did he say what he thought it had arisen from?
He doesn't say it outright, but talks about its relatedness to the ʻapapane, so that would be implied, but I don't think we can really do that. I made the connection indirectly by adding "and noted its resemblance to the ʻapapane." FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He pointed out that the length of their wings was rather short, which perhaps indicated a beginning tendency in such a direction. The wing of the finch was shorter, perhaps because it had reached Laysan earlier than the honeycreeper.: is there something about insular dwarfism to be said here?
It's only the wings, so if anything, it would be flightlessness, which often develops in island birds, but the source doesn't specify further. FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • it could be seen as: better as it could have been, I think: it either was one or it wasn't, surely?
I think the source was vaguer, but took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They speculated that if this bird could survive on Laysan, there could also be a niche for a relative on the island of Nihoa.: can we give some indication of why this might be the case?
They don't specify, but Rauzon below says: "wondered why there were no descendants on Nihoa, which is closer and has more vegetation", which is probably what they had in mind. FunkMonk (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could move that up, but I think we'd be in danger of WP:SYNTH. Perhaps "nearby island of Nihoa"? UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The info is ordered chronologically, so I'd be wary of that, but added your last suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They also pointed out that the idea that Hawaiian honeycreepers were an upland group is an artefact of them: this sentence gets a bit long and tricky: it might be clearer phrased more directly as something like "they also argued that Hawaiian honeycreepers are not truly an upland group, but that the perception of them as such comes from..."
Took your wording, but said "actually" instead of "truly", since that could imply they are so at least in part. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • due to its distinct physical features, the Laysan honeycreeper was unquestionably distinct from the ʻapapane following the phylogenetic species concept: I'm not sure I fully understand this: generally speaking, we assume that two animals that don't look alike aren't the same species, but how do we tell from this that the two birds are any more different than (say) dachshunds and dalmatians?
See, that's the fun part of taxonomy, it's largely arbitrary. What really matters is that there's a scientific consensus, the criteria are often blurry and inconsistent across cases. But that said, there's a big difference between naturally developed variations within groups of animals and products of man-made breeding. What this particular species really needs is DNA analysis, but this work hasn't been done yet (though I will of course add it if it happens). FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I presume this means quotation marks should be added, which I've done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Olson and Ziegler also suggested in 1995 that the difference in plumage of the Laysan honeycreeper: is this the difference between the honeycreeper and the ʻapapane?
Tried with the following, though it seems a bit inelegant: " Olson and Ziegler also suggested in 1995 that the Laysan honeycreeper's difference in plumage from the ʻapapane was". FunkMonk (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not bad, though it does create a problem with the next clause (what's the antecedent of it?) How about something like Olson and Ziegler also suggested in 1995 that the intense sunlight of Lysan had caused the honeycreeper's plumage to fade, accounting for the difference from the ʻapapane's bright colour.?
UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Took your wording (though the source doesn't specify the ʻapapane's colour, so left that out). FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Munro added that it also frequented grass tops and other plants on the fringes of the lagoon. Their bright, scarlet plumage made them conspicuous as they fluttered among the soft green Chenopodium bushes. It was the only nectar-feeding finch of the northwestern Hawaiian Islands.: advise consistency on whether we're going for singular or plural when talking about the bird(s) in general.
Tried to distinguish between the species singular and birds plural, but I think it's difficult to make it entirely consistent while also reading well. FunkMonk (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Few naturalists personally encountered the bird: can we do without "personally" here?
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the principle behind having maiapilo etc in italics but ʻapapane not (and, later, "aweoweo")?
Right, removed all italics from such names. FunkMonk (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • when Palmer saw full-grown juveniles: can a juvenile be full-grown: don't we call those adults?
This could mean that they were of adult size but with juvenile plumage, but the source uses the more informal "young ones", which is even more ambiguous, so I've replaced it with "young birds". FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dickey's 1923 photos of the last ironwood to survive introduced rabbits: this is a perhaps unintentionally ambiguous clause: can we rework it a bit?
Added " to survive destruction by", not sure if that's what you're asking for? FunkMonk (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works perfectly. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • noted the birds were still fearless towards humans after this wholesale slaughter: I think wholesale slaughter is a bit flowery for Wikipedia, especially as it wasn't wholesale (some survived to remain fearless)
These are the words of those who reported it (they actually say it no less than three times), I've added quotation marks and in-text attribution: "after this "wholesale slaughter", as Dill and Bryan described it". I agree it shouldn't have been said like that in Wikipedia's voice. FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like that: it's good to get both a) what happened and b) the sense of horror that observers felt about it. We could even promote it a bit: something like Dill and Bryan described what they saw as "wholesale slaughter": they found thousands of bird skeletons left over by feather hunters, as well as several Laysan honeycreeper skins, but noted the birds were still fearless towards humans.. Very much a matter of taste, but I think that's a good enough detail to let it colour the description more strongly. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They estimated that 300 Laysan honeycreepers remained, and that it and other birds: as we've just used the plural, better as they?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were less common than other birds, but were constantly around their building: advise switching their for "the naturalists'" or similar: the switching antecedent is a little awkward (sounds as if the birds had taken out a lease on it).
Said "around the building the researchers inhabited". FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the American First Lieutenant William H. Munter: a bit odd to give a rank like this: more usual as "naval officer", "army officer", or so on. At any rate, as we're saying that he was a first lieutenant rather than giving it as part of his name (as we haven't called everyone else Mr. Jones, Dr. Smith etc), we should decapitalise.
Went with naval officer. FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a scientific survey onboard the USS Tanager: WP:NCS and common usage discourages the before a ship's name (there is, after all, by definition only one USS Tanagar at any one time), but the page does say that it isn't technically wrong.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • While filming a Laysan finch on April 18, Dickey heard a male honeycreeper, and managed to turn around and film it singing on a coral rock: neater and more concise?
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would spell out "photo" as "photograph" in formal writing, but that may be me being old-fashioned.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • during US military construction: can we put a date on this?
Added "beginning in 1940". So WW2 pretty much killed off that species. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I figured as much. Nice to make that sad detail (one among many) absolutely clear to the reader. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When using the |edition= parameter with books, you need to give it as an ordinal -- eg. 1st, 2nd, 3rd -- otherwise, the template outputs "2 ed.", which is odd and possibly ambiguous.
Changed to "2nd". FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some journals seem to have ISSNs, others don't.
Not sure what should be done about this, remove the few occurrences of it for consistency? FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd go to ISSN portal and add the rest: giving the ISSN, particularly when you can't link the article, is a good way to reassure people that a) the source exists and b) it's reasonably kosher. It wouldn't be wrong to remove the ISSNs (though some reviewers would then suggest putting them back in), but I think it would be a step backwards. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So how does this work, do you search for a specific article or journal, or only those with a DOI? Will save this for last, seems a bit tedious. FunkMonk (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much all journals have ISSNs: just stick the name of it in there and it'll come up. DOIs are a different thing -- those are just more stable versions of a URL (for the article itself), whereas an ISSN is an identifying number for the journal as a publication. If you've reused the same journal, it'll be the same ISSN regardless of date, issue, volume etc. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done to the ones that showed up in the search (some of the older ones didn't), yikes, that should really be automated, like adding of so many other identifiers are when pushing the "expand citations" button... FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot on a first pass. I truly enjoyed this article, and apologise for the long list of nit-picks: please take them as questions, for the most part, rather than demands. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, a lot of nice observations, might take a few days to get through it all. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Phew, I think everything is addressed now, UndercoverClassicist. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support: it really is a wonderfully-written article, and certainly one of my favourites that I have read on here, despite its sombre subject matter. Excellent work and thank you for your forbearance with the comments. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ian's drive-by

[edit]
  • Laysan should become a government preserve for bird life, protected by human-made destruction -- "protected from human-made destruction"?
Yikes, good catch, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • wholesale slaughter stood out for me too, similar reasoning to UC.
Copied from above: These are the words of those who reported it (they actually say it no less than three times), I've added quotation marks and in-text attribution: "after this "wholesale slaughter", as Dill and Bryan described it". I agree it shouldn't have been said like that in Wikipedia's voice. FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Esculenta

[edit]

I conducted the recent GA review as a FAC-level review (after prior agreement with FunkMonk), including citation spot-checks and a search for other unused sources. Have no problems with supporting this as FA. Want to also add I'm quite impressed with UndercoverClassicist's attention to detail, and have read his suggestions carefully to see what I missed and to improve my "nitpicking" skills! Esculenta (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Generalissima

[edit]
  • File:Laysan honeycreeper in 1923.jpg: Public domain.
  • File:PAT - Hawaii.gif: Released into the public domain.
  • File:Hawaiian passerine bills.jpg: Public domain.
  • File:PSM V63 D335 Laysan finch honeywater and wingless rail.png: Public domain.
  • File:Pezzillo Hosmer ʻApapane-2.jpg: CC-BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Himatione fraithii.jpg: Public domain.
  • File:Map of Laysan Island.jpg: Public domain.
  • File:Laysan Island 2010 USGS Lidar.JPG: Public domain, from USGS.
  • File:Starr 030202-0066 Capparis sandwichiana.jpg: CC-BY 3.0
  • File:Starr 030626-0023 Sesuvium portulacastrum.jpg: CC-BY 3.0
  • File:Laysan Honey Eater nest.jpg: Public domain.
  • File:Henry Palmer among frigate birds on Laysan.jpg: Public domain.
  • File:Poached albatross on Laysan Island.jpg: Public domain.
  • File:Tanager Expedition camp after sandstorm in 1923.jpg: Public domain.
  • File:Last Ironwood on Laysan in 1923.jpg: Public domain.
  • File:Laysan ʻApapane.ogv: Public domain.

All images are appropriate to the article and well-captioned. They all have good alt-text. Everything looks good to me - Support on image review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I disagree with changing the image layout, though, the MOS section you refer to (MOS:IMAGELOC) specifically says "Mul­ti­ple im­ages can be stag­gered right and left", which was the case here. In cases with few images, right aligning them all makes sense, but here it makes it look cluttered, like a wall of images further down the article. Note it also just says "Most images should be on the right side of the page", so it's not a hard rule. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverine

[edit]

Placeholder for now. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 10:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lower abdomen was dusky gray that faded into brownish white, and the under-tail covert feathers were grayish. Rm hyphen
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Immature birds were brown, with paler lower parts, and had green edges to their wing-covert feathers. Please remove the commas; they're grammatically incorrect
Removed the first comma, but kept the second, as it flows better this way. Not convinced there's anything incorrect about it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The honeycreeper lived throughout it, but was most abundant in the interior among tall grass and low bushes near the open plain that bordered the island's lagoon. A comma is not needed here and I'm not sure about "throughout it"
Removed "it", but kept the comma, as it flows better. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • From 1893 to 1900, Rothschild published a three-part monograph on the birds of Laysan, with further observations about the honeycreeper, which he referred to as the Laysan honey-eater. Hyphen here is grammatically incorrect
Which hyphen? If you mean in the name of the bird, that's the form he used, so I've added quotation marks. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pyle therefore concluded that according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, the name should not be emended, and the original spelling should be reinstated. No need for the last comma
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2015, the AOU implemented these propositions in their check-list. Again no need for the hyphen
Removed, though the hyphen is present in the official name of the organisation. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some museums have multiple specimens, including: 24 in the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum in Honolulu, 20 (including the type specimen) in the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, and 20 in the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C.. What is happening at the end?
There don't seem to be clear rules about how to handle it, so I just removed the D.C. part. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some museums have multiple specimens, including: 24 in the Rm colon
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • whereafter erosion and tectonic subsidence reduced it in height, I propose you just say "its height"
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Immature birds were brown, with paler lower parts, and had green edges to their wing-covert feathers. No need for commas here
Removed first comma, but flows better with the second comma. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • but much of it was destroyed by human activities by 1923, leaving near-desert like conditions and several extinct plant species, though the extent of the vegetation had almost recovered by 1973. Add a hyphen between desert and like
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1903, Fisher stated that the Laysan honeycreeper was found all over Laysan Island, but was most abundant in the interior among tall grass and low bushes near the open plain that bordered the lagoon, an area where all the land-birds appeared to congregate. Again, no need for the hyphen
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Munro added that they also frequented grass tops and other plants on the fringes of the lagoon. grass+tops = grasstops
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fisher noted that the nest of the Laysan honeycreeper was more difficult to find than that of the Laysan millerbird, Rm comma
Disagree, it is a very long sentence which flows better when broken up by a comma. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fisher collected a nest with an egg in mid-may, while the American zoologist William A. Bryan collected an egg on May 10. May should be capitalized
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ovate eggs were glossless white, with grayish blotches and spots at the larger end, and reddish brown spots above these, these markings often forming circles. Awkwardly phrased. I don't like the double "these", the last two commas seem unnecessary and "forming" should be "formed"
Changed first "these" to "them". I think the rest is better as is. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1909, the US president Theodore Roosevelt issued an executive order that made several Hawaiian islets and reefs (including Laysan) part of the Hawaiian Islands Reservation. Rm "the" and capitalize "president"
Both are valid, but I use "the" in front of occupations everywhere else, so it should be consistent. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • probably the last photographic evidence of this bird, by some authors called the "swan song" of the species. By? Should be "which"
Both work, but changed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got. It was indeed an interesting read. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 10:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolicited feedback, I know, but a lot of these grammar points are contrary to the MoS. Compound modifiers should always have a hyphen (MOS:HYPHEN), commas are perfectly good to break sentences into their constituent parts (MOS:COMMA) and are perfectly fine in a list before "and" (MOS:SERIALCOMMA). Compound modifiers with more than two words use an endash (MOS:DASH). The current framing on Roosevelt is correct per MOS:PEOPLETITLES. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I use common sense not MOS. Plus, it really depends on the context. Some of the commas and hypens are unnecessary, and it has nothing to do with serial commas or MOS. FYI, a serial comma is used after the penultimate term in a list of 3 or more items, not necessarily before "and". Wolverine XI (talk to me) 11:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, as this is Wikipedia, not a personal website, the MOS is what the follow at FAC, but I'll see if there's some of it I can implement if I feel it works better. FunkMonk (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All should be answered now. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice work. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 06:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]
  • and brown down from Laysan albatrosses (Phoebastria immutabilis) – Birds of the World states "Phoebastria spp", not providing the full species name. This might indicate that modern ornithologists are not convinced that Fischer (1903) could have reliably identified the down to species level. I guess that immutabilis is the most likely but others cannot be excluded. Maybe add "according to Fischer (1903)" to mitigate the issue? (edit: I personally would probably go with just "brown albatross down"). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Went with "and brown down from albatrosses". FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • finch family Drepanidae – but the finches where their own family since the beginning, wasn't the Drepanidae considered as a family distinct from finches?
Yes, what is meant is that they are a family of finches. I tried with "and classified it in Drepanidae, commonly called the Hawaiian honeycreepers, a finch family recognized at the time". FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • member of the finch family Drepanidae, the Hawaiian honeycreepers – I think this needs some hint that this family is no longer in use, and I found it confusing. Maybe write "a member of the Hawaiian honeycreepers, which at the time were considered a separate family named Drepanidae"?
I wanted to include the term "finch", proposed wording in answer above. FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern was that Drepanidae cannot possibly be a "finch family", because finches are (and have always been) considered a family on their own. The sentence would imply that Drepanidae are a family within a family, which is not possible. I know that "finch" may also be colloquially applied to a diffuse wider grouping, but in that case, the wikilink is misleading as it points to "true finches". What about "and classified it in Drepanidae, commonly called the Hawaiian honeycreepers, which are now classified within the finches (Fringillidae)."? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I only just realised the source of confusion, as I haven't read everything in the old papers concerned with higher taxonomy, but apparently at the time this species was named, Drepanidae and Fringillidae were considered two separate families[4], while it was unclear how the two were related to each other.[5] The easiest would of course just be to gloss over it, but I think I need to find a way to explain it, while also mentioning when drepanids were considered a subgroup of finches... Will have to look through some sources, well-spotted! FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article already hinted at this, I just didn't put two and two together: "Their relationships to other finches remained uncertain, and they were often considered a distinct lineage outside the Fringillidae." FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think I understood it when reading about it later in the taxonomy section; I just found the sentence confusing without being aware of that later information. Now, I think we just need to adjust the sentence, I see two issues: First, it's not really a "finch family", and second, the Hawaiian honeycreepers are still recognised today (just not as a family under the name Drepanidae). Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking about just leaving out mention of finches until the evolution section, and just letting that section explain the issue as it is. It isn't really relevant to the taxonomic history of this species in itself anyway. What do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, maybe just "and classified it in the now defunct family Drepanidae"? Just needs some hint that the family is no longer recognised, I think. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried with "classified it as a member of Drepanidae which was recognized as a family at the time, commonly called the Hawaiian honeycreepers" because I don't want to editorialize too much by retroactively calling it defunct. But it should make it clear that it is specific for its time. That Hawaiian honeycreepers are still used as a group today is indicated by the evolution section. That said, it seems odd a clade name isn't used for them anymore... FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably it is without clade name because the clade is currently below subfamily rank. Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "generic name" needs a wikilink I think.
Done, as it seems I hadn't linked genus either, which is at the same article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • which is found across the main Hawaii archipelago, while differing in various details. – the word "while" does not make sense to me here. Would "and differs in various details" work?
I just removed "while". FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some museums have multiple specimens, including: 24 in the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum in Honolulu, 20 (including the type specimen) in the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, and 20 in the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C.. – Any information where the holotype is? London? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you overlook it or is it unclearly worded? "20 (including the type specimen) in the American Museum of Natural History". FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just overlooked that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to present tense. FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are the two mutually exclusive? The source for that part says "The aspect of Laysan as a raised coral island 18,000 years ago may now be observed in the high coral islands of Makatea and Henderson". Another cited source says "Laysan is a coral island capped by large sand accumulations and with a large salt water lagoon in its central depression. The island is probably the flattened top of a once massive volcanic peak formed perhaps during the Miocene, since eroded far below the present sea level, and subsequently built up by the action of coral, other marine invertebrates and calcareous algae. The depth of the coral deposits capping Laysan has not been determined but is probably considerable."[6] So from what I read, the base is volcanic, but the surface is coral? FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, got it. It had been a volcano-like island long before it became a raised atoll. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • due to the limited building materials – do you mean "due to the limited selection of building materials"? As it is now, it reads as if the total amount of building material would be limited, but that does not really explain why the nests are similar. It makes sense when there are only a few types of building materials available (irrespective of their abundance).
Added "selection of", as the source says. FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and rootlets with some dry grass (variously described as loosely or well built) – the gloss appears to refer to "some dry grass", but that does not make much sense to me. Should this refer to the nest as a whole instead?
I tried to move it out of the parenthesis as " The nest, which was variously described as loosely or well built, was lined with fine rootlets". FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've answered the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and content. Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AK

[edit]
  • Will do soon. AryKun (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in 1892, and was placed in the" to "in 1892, who placed in the"? The current structure feels a bit off to me because I expect parallelism and there isn't any.
Tried with "who placed it in the genus Himatione along with the ʻapapane", if that's what you had in mind. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "long, and its wing" Comma unnecessary.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "under-tail" I'd remove the hyphen because I've seen "undertail" used more often in ornithological literature.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to the island, which proceeded" to "to the island and proceeded"
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You spell it Drepanidae in "classified it as a member of Drepanidae". I'm not sure it that's intentional or not.
It's how it was spelled in the publication where this species was named, see last paragraph under evolution for details on variations. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "arise through isolation, and noted" Comma unnecessary.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "colonizing the island, and he divided" to "colonizing the island and divided"
I think it flows better like that, as it's a very long sentence with two distinct parts. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "honeycreeper, and few accounts" Comma unnecessary.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Laysan finch, and the nests" to "the Laysan finch; the nests"?
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "begin with, and only three" Comma unnecessary.
As above, I think the long sentence flows better this way. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Laysan were abundant, and that there" Comma unnecessary.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "honeycreepers remained, and that they" Comma unnecessary.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all should now be addressed. And yeah, tough to see how easily these species could had been saved... FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. AryKun (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  1. 2 probably needs an archive link, and should say what the source is rather than just the domain. Some sources like #15 need archives. I notice inconsistent applications of identifiers like DOI and JSTOR, is this an artifact of distinct sources having distinct parameters? It looks like we are dealing with prominent journals as sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added archive to PDF link 2. It also says "Bishop Museum", so I'm not sure what else you mean needs to be added? Not sure why sources like 15 need archives, it's a link to the museum journal's repository where the PDF can be found, do you mean all sources to PDFs need to be archived? As for DOI/JSTOR, both don't necessarily exist for all the same sources. FunkMonk (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means you should have Bishop Museum instead of the domain name. AryKun (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps? That was automatically filled in, so I would assume that's what the template wants. But pinging Jo-Jo Eumerus for clarification. FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, in this case it should say "Bishop Museum" rather than giving a domain name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did my last edit solve this? FunkMonk (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Laysan_honeycreeper/archive1&oldid=1234365727"